has been announced with evidence of its effective operation. The recognition usual in such cases has been accorded the new Government.”a January 9, 1895, President Cleveland submitted to Congress a message in relation to the desire of the Hawaiian Government to lease Necker Island, one of the uninhabited islands belonging to the group, as a station for a submarine cable to be laid from Canada to Australia, with a connection between that island and Honolulu. It was admitted that by the reciprocity treaty the lease could not be effected without the consent of the United States; but, in view of "the advantages to be gained by isolated Hawaii through telegraphic communication with the rest of the world," it was recommended that the request of the Hawaiian Government be granted.' The necessary consent was not given.

Native revolt, Jan. 1895.

In January, 1895, a native revolt was attempted near Honolulu, led by the "half-white Hawaiian rebels, Nowlein, Bertlemann, Warren, and others." It was their intention to march on Honolulu on Monday, the 7th of the month. A police raid, however, on Bertlemann's house at Waikiki, disconcerted their plans. The Government took prompt and vigorous measures, and instituted on January 17 a military commission of seven members, martial law having been declared. By the end of January, 38 persons had been tried, of whom five claimed to be citizens of the United States and one an Englishman, while the rest were half-castes and Hawaiians. Various persons were also expelled. The ex-Queen was arrested and held a prisoner in the executive building, formerly the palace. On the 24th of January she sent the Government a letter, disclaiming any connection with the revolt, recognizing the Republic, and renouncing all claims and pretensions, political or otherwise, "excepting only such rights and privileges as belong to me in common with all private citizens or residents in the Republic of Hawaii;" and she also presented an oath of allegiance to the Republic. Martial law was maintained till March 18, 1895. Among those convicted by the military court of complicity in the attempted uprising was ex-Queen Liliuokalani. In October, 1896, she received a full pardon, relieving her of a $5,000 fine imposed by the court and restoring her to all the rights of Hawaiian citizenship. This appears to have constituted the final chapter in the history of the revolt.

a President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1894.

bFor. Rel. 1894, App. II. 1375.

For. Rel. 1895, II. 818, et seq.

d For. Rel. 1895, II. 820-825.

For. Rel. 1895, II. 818-867. See also For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 1391, 1396. Feb. 16, 1895, Mr. Willis, United States minister at Honolulu, reported that about a hundred persons had been tried by the commission, and that there were about two hundred political prisoners besides. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 832.)

f For. Rel. 1896, 388.

9 Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, lxxv.

nexation treaty,

June 16, 1897.

By article 32 of the constitution promulgated in 1894, the President of the Republic of Hawaii was expressly authorized Signature of an- and empowered, with the approval of the cabinet, "to make a treaty of political or commercial union," with the United States, subject to ratification in legal form. A new treaty of annexation was concluded at Washington, June 16, 1897. It was signed on the part of the United States by Mr. Sherman, Secretary of State, and by three commissioners on the part of Hawaii. It was submitted by President McKinley to the Senate on the same day, with a message in which he said:

"Not only is the union of the Hawaiian territory to the United States no new scheme, but it is the inevitable consequence of the relation steadfastly maintained with that mid-Pacific domain for three-quarters of a century. Its accomplishment, despite successive denials and postponements, has been merely a question of time. While its failure in 1893 may not be a cause of congratulation, it is certainly a proof of the disinterestedness of the United States, the delay of four years having abundantly sufficed to establish the right and the ability of the Republic of Hawaii to enter, as a sovereign contractant, upon a conventional union with the United States, thus realizing a purpose held by the Hawaiian people and proclaimed by successive Hawaiian governments through some seventy years of their virtual dependence upon the benevolent protection of the United States. Under such circumstances, annexation is not a change; it is a consummation." a

.

"The Senate having removed the injunction of secrecy, although the treaty is still pending before that body, the subject may be properly referred to in this message because the necessary action of the Congress is required to determine by legislation many details of the eventual union, should the fact of annexation be accomplished, as I believe it should be. That treaty was unanimously ratified without amendment by the Senate and President of the Republic of Hawaii on the 10th of September last, and only awaits the favorable action of the American Senate to effect the complete absorption of the islands into the domain of the United States. What the conditions of such a union shall be, the political relation thereof to the United States, the character of the local administration, the quality and degree of the elective franchise of the inhabitants, the extension of the Federal laws to the territory or the enactment of special laws to fit the peculiar condition thereof, the regulation if need be of the labor system therein, are all matters which the treaty has wisely relegated to the Congress. "If the treaty is confirmed, as every consideration of dignity and honor requires, the wisdom of Congress will see to it that, avoiding aS. Ex. E, 55 Cong. 1 sess. Similar statements may be found in President McKinley's annual messages of Dec. 6, 1897, and Dec. 5, 1898.

abrupt assimilation of elements perhaps hardly yet fitted to share in the highest franchises of citizenship, and having due regard to the geographical conditions, the most just provisions for self-rule in local matters with the largest political liberties as an integral part of our nation will be accorded to the Hawaiians. No less is due to a people who, after nearly five years of demonstrated capacity to fulfill the obligations of self-governing statehood, come of their free will to merge their destinies in our body-politic.

"The questions which have arisen between Japan and Hawaii by reason of the treatment of Japanese laborers emigrating to the islands under the Hawaiian-Japanese convention of 1888, are in a satisfactory stage of settlement by negotiation. This Government has not been invited to mediate, and on the other hand has sought no intervention in that matter, further than to evince its kindliest disposition toward such a speedy and direct adjustment by the two sovereign states in interest as shall comport with equity and honor. It is gratifying to learn that the apprehensions at first displayed on the part of Japan lest the cessation of Hawaii's national life through annexation might impair privileges to which Japan honorably laid claim, have given place to confidence in the uprightness of this Government, and in the sincerity of its purpose to deal with all possible ulterior questions in the broadest spirit of friendliness."

President McKinley, Ann. Message, Dec. 6, 1897.

and its withdrawal.

The apprehensions of Japan, referred to in the preceding message, were expressed in certain communications made by Protest of Japan the Japanese minister at Washington to the Department of State. The Japanese Government took the the ground (1) That the maintenance of the status quo in Hawaii was essential to the good understanding of the powers having interests in the Pacific; and (2) that the absorption of the islands by the United States would tend to endanger certain rights of Japanese subjects in the group, under its treaties, constitution, and laws, and might result in postponing the settlement of claims and liabilities. existing in favor of Japan under treaty stipulations. At the same time the Japanese Government took occasion to deny "the mischievous suggestion or report" that it entertained designs against the territorial integrity or the sovereignty of the islands.

The Government of the United States, while declaring this assurance to have been entirely unnecessary, since no doubt could be entertained as to "the sincerity and friendliness of Japan in all that concerns her relation to the United States and to the Hawaiian Islands," replied (1) That, while the treaties of Hawaii would fall with annexation, this would not extinguish any "vested rights" previously acquired under them; and (2) that, during three-quarters of a century, in which the

government and commerce of the islands had undergone notable changes, the one essential feature of the status quo had been the predominant and paramount influence of the United States, ultimate political union being often foreshadowed and recognized as a necessary contingency; that when, four years previously, a similar project of annexation was entertained no objection was suggested by any power having interests in the Pacific; and that it could not be admitted that "the projected more perfect union of Hawaii to the United States by which the progressive policies and dependent associations of some seventy years have their destined culmination can injure any legitimate interests of other powers." On the contrary, it was expected "to strengthen, develop, and perpetuate all such commonly beneficial interests." a

"I regret to note that your Government, notwithstanding the candid statements made in my note of June 25th, continues to insist that the maintenance of what it terms the status quo of Hawaii is essential to the good understanding of the powers which have interests in the Pacific. I pointed out that the proposed annexation was nothing more than the culmination of an avowed policy, announced and furthered by successive monarchical and republican governments of the Hawaiian Islands and pursued on the part of the United States through a long series of years. The fact cited of the augmentation that has taken place in the interests of Japan in the Pacific,' can not properly be advanced as a reason why the policy so long declared and pursued should be abandoned just on the eve of its realization. This augmentation of Japanese interests has taken place in the knowledge of certain well known historical facts, among which the following may be enumerated. More than half a century ago, the Government of the United States announced to the world that its interest in the Hawaiian Islands was predominant, and that it could not regard with indifference any attempt to interfere with that interest, a position which has been constantly and continously maintained. This was soon followed by a declination on its part to unite with England and France in a guarantee of the independence and autonomy of the islands. Not long thereafter one of the native kings authorized the negotiation of a treaty of annexation to the United States, which was not at that time consummated because of his untimely death. After repeated solicitation on the part of Hawaiian sovereigns, a treaty of commercial reciprocity was negotiated by one of them with the United States more than twenty years ago, which not only made the islands for commercial

a Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Toru Hoshi, Jap. min., June 25, 1897, MS. Notes, to Jap. Leg. I. 521. See, also, Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sewall, min. to Hawaii, May 26, 1897, MS. Inst. Hawaii, III. 318; Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, tel., June 25, 1897, MS. Inst. Japan, IV. 426; Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, June 26, 1897, id. 427.

purposes practically a part of the United States, but contained clauses of territorial rights exclusively enjoyed by the United States as against all other nations. The purpose and effect of this treaty was understood in the United States to be to prepare the way for complete political union at the proper time. When the present Government of Hawaii was established it declared its intention to bring about annexation to the United States at the earliest practicable moment, and it inserted a clause to that effect in its constitution. Under these conditions Japanese immigration to and commerce with the islands began and have been augmented to their present proportions. It may be added that a very large proportion of the immigration has taken place and the commerce grown up since the present Hawaiian Government was established. The Japanese Government permitted and encouraged the immigration of its subjects and the growth of its commerce under these conditions, and with a full knowledge of the policy of the United States as to these matters. It can have therefore no well-founded cause of complaint if only the usual and legitimate results flow from the proposed annexation. . . .

"Neither should your Government entertain any anxiety as to the treatment which its commerce will receive at the hands of the United States. We have welcomed the establishment of one line of Japanese steamers to our Pacific coast, and hope that others may follow. Such development is perfectly natural, as to-day and for many years past the United States has afforded a large and more profitable market than any other country for Japanese products. On the other hand, it has been a source of regret that relatively so small a part of the import trade of Japan is made up of American products. Increased transportation facilities will, it is hoped, improve this state of the trade, and it will be the aim of the United States to do all that is possible, consistent with its domestic policy, to stimulate and enlarge reciprocal commerce. The annexation of the islands will necessarily constitute a coastwise trade, but there is no reason to expect that the expanding commerce of Japan will be materially hampered by the political union which must have been foreseen and which is the natural result of more than a half a century of preparation.

"There only remains one other point of your note which seems to call for a reply. You express the fear that the consummation of annexation might tend to delay an adjustment of claims for indemnity which Japan is now pressing upon Hawaii. I agree with you that if Japan has just and well-founded claims against Hawaii, the latter should not expect to evade them by an alteration in its political status. But I do not understand that such evasion is sought; on the contrary, Hawaii has offered to submit the question of liability to arbitration, and as this offer has been promptly accepted in principle, no unreasonable delay should be anticipated in the actual adjustment.